Gitea itself started as a fork of Gogs, it wouldn't be too surprising to see it fork again if they start being creative with the brand.
I don't think this announcement was handled particularly well, but nonetheless, I think it's an important development for gitea to grow and become sustainable.
Specifically, Gitea is in desperate need of full-time maintainers (and probably a part-time project manager), and I see this as an essential step to creating the necessary governance for that.
I remain cautiously optimistic and would encourage everyone who is passionate about the project to raise their concerns and wishes in a constructive way. Another fork would be a disaster for the entire ecosystem and I think should only happen if there really are SIGNIFICANTLY diverging interests in the project.
I also haven't heard anything in the gitea threads about crypto, so I think they're just referring to bounties and other distributed payments.
Meanwhile there are existing open-source foundations and conservancies that operate just fine as traditional (not-for-profit) corporations and no need for a DAO or any cryptocurrencies for community governance.
We were migrating from GitLab, so I considered to install Gogs, we decided to go with GitHub unfortunately.
It's mostly a term to describe codified governance/community systems. There may be point systems implemented via crypto tokens, but in the vast majority of cases those would be better implemented on centralized ledgers since there's someone with centralized control over either the token issuance, the communication channels, or other essential resources.
If they were developed now, Stack Overflow and Wikipedia would be considered DAOs.
I'm unable to find an actual example of anything calling itself a DAO which doesn't also play with cryptocurrency tokens, so I'm pretty sure the term isn't used outside of that fanbase.
ducks
Wikipedia is run as a not-for-profit Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation). It doesn't seem anything like DAO either. Again, unless you mean the community of contributors to Wikipedia, and that also is extremely centralized to Wikipedia servers and doesn't have anything resembling "autonomous", not even something resembling Stack Overflow's game mechanics.
The "autonomous" in DAO still only means "smart contracts" and no one is using DAO as a term for traditional corporate structures other than those intentionally confused by or wishing to confuse what "autonomous" means in the acronym.
Or well.. DAO. Likely means blockchain bs.
Also in their footer:
> Sponsored by INBlockchain, Equinix Metal, Two Sigma, SoEBeS, Allspice, Towhee, Hostea, Jeff Moe, and all of our backers on Open Collective.
That's not something a serious, registered company would risk given known sanctions against Iran. A random scam dao maybe doesn't care, but I suspect gitea does.
The fun part is: "CFTC’s order first finds that virtual currencies traded on the bZx Protocol, including ETH and DAI, are “commodities” under the CEA.", which is close to "It's cute you set up your daos and automated protocols, but legally that's irrelevant."
Regarding ignoring the identity: "The order further finds that the Ooki DAO failed to adopt a customer identification program, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Commission regulations promulgated thereunder."